Why should people missing 85 percent of an equation (dark matter)

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Menan said:

LOL, so you are the one who understands the difference between dark matter and energy, when both are just needed variables in an equation that might be totally wrong in the first place.

That doesn't make much sense. Pretty much anyone with a basic knowledge of physics understands the difference between these. 

And, obviously, the equation might be wrong. But, so far, there is no evidence for that. The equations work and that is the best you can ask for in science.

You seem disappointed that we don't know about things we don't have any evidence for. Or something. I'm not sure what the point of your little rant is.

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, Menan said:

So Einstein based science on the common thought.

Common scientific thought, perfectly consistent with observation

57 minutes ago, Menan said:

Examples of common thought.  Earth flat, God did it

Flat earth precedes modern science by a pretty long time, and "God did it" is not scientific 

57 minutes ago, Menan said:

The defense rest

This is science, not law. (which is a fairly common error among people who attack science)

47 minutes ago, Menan said:

 Give me a million negative ratings, but you will all be dead before I am disproved. 

Narrator: it took about eight seconds

[mistermack]

52 minutes ago, Menan said:

Learn that 85 percent of the universe is missing.  Sorry can't do that because I know it's all there,

What they are saying is that it's not visible. Not with the technology we have so far developed. That doesn't mean it's missing. 

If something is moving the long grass, it might still be a lion, even if you can't see the lion. You can detect it's presence. Same thing applies to stars. If something moves them, it's pretty certain that there's something there.

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If something is moving the long grass, it might still be a lion, even if you can't see the lion. You can detect it's presence. Same thing applies to stars. If something moves them, it's pretty certain that there's something there.

And, just to be clear, it is possible that the explanation for dark matter is that our equations for gravity are wrong - and many people are investigating this possibility. But the evidence now is overwhelmingly in favour of dark matter as some form of matter that we can’t currently detect. 

[Danijel Gorupec]

6 hours ago, Silvestru said:

What do you mean admit? who do you feel that anyone owes you anything? Do you have a better model to explain why galaxies don't fly apart from each other? I am waiting

Sorry, my reaction was only because of language use (from Zapatos side). Using the term 'not fully understood' seemed to me like an overstatement... I think that scientists should be brutally honest also when evaluating own accomplishments. Anything else can backfire, imo.

So I propose not to use the 'not fully understood' qualification when talking about dark mater and dark energy. A better term, imo, would be 'largely unknown' or similar.

I would suggest to use the 'not fully understood' qualification only if you strongly believe that explaining a phenomenon will not introduce any new physics (that it can be explained only by known physics). I don't think that our dark mater and dark energy understanding is there yet.

[Silvestru]

3 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Sorry, my reaction was only because of language use (from Zapatos side). Using the term 'not fully understood' seemed to me like an overstatement... I think that scientists should be brutally honest also when evaluating own accomplishments. Anything else can backfire, imo.

So I propose not to use the 'not fully understood' qualification when talking about dark mater and dark energy. A better term, imo, would be 'largely unknown' or similar.

I would suggest to use the 'not fully understood' qualification only if you strongly believe that explaining a phenomenon will not introduce any new physics (that it can be explained only by known physics). I don't think that our dark mater and dark energy understanding is there yet.

So by this logic, we would describe electromagnetism as "not fully understood"? It ticks on all your criteria. What about a more specific phenomena like lightning. 

Should we describe lightning as not fully understood?

What about magnetism. If my cousin asks me why a magnet attracts a screw should I say that this is not fully understood as well?

[Danijel Gorupec]

9 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

So by this logic, we would describe electromagnetism as "not fully understood"? It ticks on all your criteria. What about a more specific phenomena like lightning. 

Should we describe lightning as not fully understood?

What about magnetism. If my cousin asks me why a magnet attracts a screw should I say that this is not fully understood as well?

Of course, you can also use 'fully understood' when appropriate :)... What I am saying is that you should not use 'not fully understood' if there is a chance that an unknown physics will be needed to make full explanation. It is better to be honest and just say 'we don't really understand it'.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Of course, you can also use 'fully understood' when appropriate :)... What I am saying is that you should not use 'not fully understood' if there is a chance that an unknown physics will be needed to make full explanation. It is better to be honest and just say 'we don't really understand it'.

I think that is a good point. We don't know what dark matter is (or even if it is matter). If it is some form of matter, it would seem that would have to be something outside the current standard model. And if it isn't some form of matter, then it is new physics by definition.

On the other hand, it could be argued that nothing is ever "fully understood".

[Silvestru]

Ok, back to dark matter. You propose to qualify it as "largely unknown". Yet it is consistent with our observations. There is a whole section about it on the wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

It's still hypothetical just because we don't know what it's made of because it does not interact(doesn't seem to) with EM Radiation. But Galaxies are not flying apart from each other. So why is that? Some unseen matter is "holding them together".  We call this "dark matter". Which part of this thinking process would you change? I would agree with you only that the name confuses the weak of mind and I have had heated discussions trying to explain that this is not evil energy.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

And, just to be clear, it is possible that the explanation for dark matter is that our equations for gravity are wrong - and many people are investigating this possibility. But the evidence now is overwhelmingly in favour of dark matter as some form of matter that we can’t currently detect. 

To be a little more precise, detect in a more direct fashion. If we assume GR is correct, we have detected dark matter by gravitational lensing and with galactic rotation curve measurements. Which is not very different than other "detection" of particles in accelerators, where we measure the effect they have, rather than directly interacting with them. Detection via secondary interactions is still detection.

23 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

So by this logic, we would describe electromagnetism as "not fully understood"? It ticks on all your criteria. What about a more specific phenomena like lightning. 

Should we describe lightning as not fully understood?

What about magnetism. If my cousin asks me why a magnet attracts a screw should I say that this is not fully understood as well?

"Not fully understood" applies to so much of science as to be a meaningless observation. There's always going to be something that's currently beyond what we can experimentally confirm, so we can't claim to fully understand what's going on. 

[Silvestru]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think that is a good point. We don't know what dark matter is (or even if it is matter). If it is some form of matter, it would seem that would have to be something outside the current standard model. And if it isn't some form of matter, then it is new physics by definition.

I always knew you are a MOND person!

[Strange]

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

To be a little more precise, detect in a more direct fashion.

Absolutely. And, if one is being pedantic, then all types of detection are indirect to some extent.

54 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I always knew you are a MOND person!

How dare you, sir!

*slaps face and throws glove on the floor*

[Danijel Gorupec]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

*slaps face and throws glove on the floor*

Um.. am I late already to point out that Silvestru might be a polar bear?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Um.. am I late already to point out that Silvestru might be a polar bear?

"oops" 

*smooths fur on side of Silvestru's face and offers a sardine*

[Silvestru]

9 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Um.. am I late already to point out that Silvestru might be a polar bear?

 

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

"oops" 

*smooths fur on side of Silvestru's face and offers a sardine*

Haha no worries guys, I'm a lover not a fighter but let's stay on topic. I am always worried when the off-topic chain is longer than 3 as it might get split. 

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, Strange said:

 How dare you, sir!

*slaps face and throws glove on the floor*

*gloves falls at an acceleration imperceptibly different than g, even after accounting for air resistance*

[koti]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

*gloves falls at an acceleration imperceptibly different than g, even after accounting for air resistance*

I miss IRC.

[Menan]

9 hours ago, Strange said:

That doesn't make much sense. Pretty much anyone with a basic knowledge of physics understands the difference between these. 

And, obviously, the equation might be wrong. But, so far, there is no evidence for that. The equations work and that is the best you can ask for in science.

You seem disappointed that we don't know about things we don't have any evidence for. Or something. I'm not sure what the point of your little rant is.

Wrong, neither dark matter or dark energy have ever been observed.  Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics would know that.

I will educate you.  Dark matter and energy are a missing variable that without the current mathematical model of expansion just does not work as the visible mass of the universe is just too small to allow for what is believed to be observed.  Thus no one knows the ratio of dark matter to energy, or even if they really exist, as they have never been observed.

So why don't you give us your info that no one else has

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Menan said:

Wrong, neither dark matter or dark energy have ever been observed. 

Then what is the reason for them being proposed?

14 minutes ago, Menan said:

Dark matter and energy are a missing variable that without the current mathematical model of expansion just does not work

Dark matter has nothing to do with expansion.

Quote

as the visible mass of the universe is just too small to allow for what is believed to be observed. 

So the visible mass is to small to match what is observed. From that we should be able to work out how much non-visible mass there needs to be, no?

Quote

Thus no one knows the ratio of dark matter to energy, or even if they really exist, as they have never been observed.

Presumably this is a work of fiction, then:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

17 minutes ago, Menan said:

So why don't you give us your info that no one else has

I don't have info that no one else has. (But it looks like I might have info that you don't have.)

[John Cuthber]

11 hours ago, Menan said:

Little children make models quite often

Some models are better than others.

For example you could model scientists as children.

That would be a very silly model.

11 hours ago, Menan said:

Dark energy and or matter are interchangeable terms because nether has been defined. 

 

11 hours ago, Menan said:

you will all be dead before I am disproved. 

dark energy

noun

PHYSICS

 

1. a theoretical form of energy postulated to act in opposition to gravity and to occupy the entire universe, accounting for most of the energy in it and causing its expansion to accelerate.

   dark matter

   noun

   ASTRONOMY

    

   1. (in some cosmological theories) non-luminous material which is postulated to exist in space and which could take either of two forms: weakly interacting particles ( cold dark matter ) or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang ( hot dark matter ).

      Does that mean  we are all dead?

[studiot]

21 hours ago, Menan said:

be treated seriously.  Would you pass class if you completed 15 percent of the exam?   Really, one fact that I know is that none of the universe is missing, it's all there just where it belongs. The thing is to comprehend that we do not comprehend what the universe is.  So is the universe wrong, the math wrong, or is the math right and we just have no vision to apply the math because what we see is not what we think we

You are much more likely to be treated seriously if you put some effort into proper English.

I am having trouble interpreting your uncompleted sentences.

For example what do you mean by the first phrase "be treated seriously" ?

or

What exactly is your question here?

Quote

Why should people missing 85 percent of an equation (dark matter)

 

If your question is what I am guessing it is then I recommend you discuss the subject with REg Prescot - he like trying to classify everything as right or wrong - a demonstrably impossible task.

As to the process of discovery you seem to be alluding to, this has served Science well many times in the past when anomalies are first noticed , then investigated, then compared and recompared until better and better explanations are developed.

For instance the theories of sunken lost continents which were supplanted by continental drift which was supplanted in turn by plate techtonics which will no doubt be at least significantly modified before it is finished or also supplanted in the future.

[Menan]

21 hours ago, Silvestru said:

What do you mean admit? who do you feel that anyone owes you anything? Do you have a better model to explain why galaxies don't fly apart from each other? I am waiting

Actually galaxies are flying apart from each other...……………….

 

Seriously

[swansont]

17 hours ago, Menan said:

Wrong, neither dark matter or dark energy have ever been observed.  Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics would know that.

What is your definition of "observed"? And is it a requirement to "observe" something to claim it as being discovered? (I think I can claim to have at least a basic level of knowledge of physics)

Quote

I will educate you.  Dark matter and energy are a missing variable that without the current mathematical model of expansion just does not work as the visible mass of the universe is just too small to allow for what is believed to be observed. 

So? It's not like physics hasn't made discoveries using a similar process before.

Quote

Thus no one knows the ratio of dark matter to energy, or even if they really exist, as they have never been observed.

That's not an accurate summary of the state of things.

[John Cuthber]

39 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

 

A silly 10 year old discovered a supernova.  https://www.livescience.com/47642-discoveries-by-kids.html

So what?

[LaurieAG]

On 10/31/2018 at 7:26 PM, Strange said:

As you have no better ideas (except to complain) I will leave it to the highly imaginative and knowledgable scientists to come up with a solution.

And, almost certainly, more questions. Because that is what is so great about science!

We do know that the ratio of total universal matter calculated using the LambdaCDM model (dark matter + ordinary matter) divided by ordinary matter equals 2*Pi +/-1.1% for both the Planck and WMAP data.  Highly imaginative and knowledgeable scientists would probably realize that this means, for universal calculations based on WMAP or PLANCK data, dark matter is redundant regardless of how it came about.